amtberg wrote:Agreed. When a reviewer starts off by saying that he didn't really try out the camera fully because he was just turned off by the "feel" of it ... you can pretty much disregard what follows.

Maybe, but buying such a camera without an added degree of caution would be... unwise.

For instance, I tried NEX 6 quickly yesterday, in low light. Honestly, I expected better ergonomics and speed, but the EVF is twitchy, AF was slow and everything was as tiny and crowded as on my E-PL1. The user experience of all those EVIL cameras is far behind any SLR, and it's a big problem. If a camera feels fiddly, if it doesn't fit like a glove, it is going to annoy you and interfere with your photographic experience as a whole. Yes, the images matter but the way a camera handles while you think about framing, about background and about the exact point of focus is equally important. If the camera annoys you, there's only so much that you're going to take before you throw the damn thing away.

About the NEX-6 you tried out: Do you know if the distortion correction was enabled in the menu? Do you know if the hybrid PDAF firmware was installed? Very fine camera indeed, once it is set up properly.

The NEX 6 was just bought by a friend who was showing it off so I got to play with it, together with normal and telephoto kit lenses. As I said, it is a mixed bag. I liked some things, didn't like the others, and my overall impression of EVIL cameras is that their image quality is excellent, but they are awkward to use and too tiny for proper ergonomics. The buttons are just too small for normal human hand. So basically I'm not sure I will ever make a complete switch to mirrorless. I will use it for some things, yes, and I'll probably keep building two systems, but it just doesn't click with me, ergonomically.

We've discussed how bias is defined before. Is it your opinion that Ming intentionally wrote a negative review of the GH3, regardless of how he really feels about it? Or is your notion of bias different? As I noted before, behavioral scientists have demonstrated that unconscious preferences and biases influence all of our opinions/judgments/decisions. Imo, there is no such thing as an objective review (unless you are only reporting raw facts, such as physical characteristics). Obviously, some reviews are more biased than others, but all reviews reflects individual tastes and preferences. So, when you say that he is biased, what exactly is it that are you saying?

-- hide signature --

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.If plan A doesn't work, the alphabet has 25 more letters, keep calm.Imagination is more important than knowledge.God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.Aleo Photo Site

We've discussed how bias is defined before. Is it your opinion that Ming intentionally wrote a negative review of the GH3, regardless of how he really feels about it? Or is your notion of bias different? As I noted before, behavioral scientists have demonstrated that unconscious preferences and biases influence all of our opinions/judgments/decisions. Imo, there is no such thing as an objective review (unless you are only reporting raw facts, such as physical characteristics). Obviously, some reviews are more biased than others, but all reviews reflects individual tastes and preferences. So, when you say that he is biased, what exactly is it that are you saying?

No, I think it is was not intentionally, I think it is his opinion, but I think it was a bit unconsciously biased because of what he likes on the OMD, not is intention but he have done it anyway.

I tried both cameras and both are at the same quality level to me, and many agree with that, they are just different cameras. I could buy both for different purposes. But I must say that I will not use the GH3 just for video purposes neither the OMD just for stills, I like stills and I only buy cameras for that, sometimes I do a video but rarely.

You know Michael, I think that you brought a good point that is, unless the reviews are only based on the technical results, there will be always biased opinions unconsciously or not.

-- hide signature --

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.If plan A doesn't work, the alphabet has 25 more letters, keep calm.Imagination is more important than knowledge.God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.Aleo Photo Site

It's a pity this doesn't show the manual focus SLR cameras from the '80s, such as Canon AE-1 or Minolta X-700, which would show how small a 35mm SLR can really be. The size got inflated in the later decades with the introduction of autofocus. They were closer to OM-D size than anything.

Look, I get that many people don't want a large m43 camera. I don't either--my favorite is the PM2. But it seems silly to continuously harp on the size of the GH3 as if no one could possibly want something so huge. The fact is that many people do. It feels better in their hands, they like all those button controls, or they accept its size as the cost of getting a great hybrid video/stills camera. Have a little imagination. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that no one else can or should.

The NEX 6 was just bought by a friend who was showing it off so I got to play with it, together with normal and telephoto kit lenses. As I said, it is a mixed bag. I liked some things, didn't like the others, and my overall impression of EVIL cameras is that their image quality is excellent, but they are awkward to use and too tiny for proper ergonomics. The buttons are just too small for normal human hand. So basically I'm not sure I will ever make a complete switch to mirrorless. I will use it for some things, yes, and I'll probably keep building two systems, but it just doesn't click with me, ergonomically.

You may be right, although some things that are different just take a bit longer to get used to. The NEX menu I admit a bit awkward but I have a NEX-5R which uses a touchscreen. Not so many buttons if I want to operate it that way.

Now I just picked up a G1 with 14-45 lens to-day for $225. (Like new.) I wonder if that, indeed, is a "consumer appliance?"

It certainly is a lot lighter, and the battery grip seems to sadly be plastic rather than mag alloy like the camera.

However it feels like a tough wee beastie on the whole. Pivoting LCD's are a weak point I would say as are pop up flashes - and the card door sucks because it cannot be locked shut and has a habit of working open as you shoot - thus compromising the weather sealing. It's annoying that there is no published MTBF for the shutter mechanism.

Those niggles aside, I think it's pretty robust for a camera costing 25% of a D4 equivalent.

Mine's going on location with me for two months in SE Asia in June, so we shall see how it fares under daily use and constant travelling. I suppose the only thing I can say is that I KNOW the Nikons will be very very likely to make it to the end of the trip but I don't yet know about the GH3.

It sounds like he got the GH3 confused with some other camera. Maybe an older Nikon camera or something. His conclusions are irrational.

Blanket statements like yours are of little use. What specifically did he say that you think is irrational?

Michael -- one minute you are calling for the adoption of behavioral science definitions in re "bias" and the next you are challenging a statement that a piece of writing based wholly on personal impressions and opinions is "irrational". Apply you behavioral science standards, my lad. Personal impressions are irrational by definition!

I studied behavioral science too.

I also read Ming's piece with some astonishment. The emotion is obtrusive throughout, the language is extreme. Irrational is a very moderate judgement of it.

…whether the popular definition is applied -- andthat applies to postings on a photo blog -- or the behavioral science definition is implied.

Is Ming's bias unconscious? Frankly, if he can produce such hyperbole and is unconscious of the problems with it, then he has a problem himself. I think he intended to be "controversial" by putting on an appearance of bias against the GH3. His language is too extreme for it to be otherwise in my view as a behavioral science graduate and professional writer, marketer, and advertiser, and teacher of "writing for a purpose".

I would counsel you to ignore Michael's apparent carping about the use of the term "bias".

He appears to lack an understanding of when to apply the specialized narrow definition of a term borrowed from the general lexicon by a science, i.e. you applied the narrow definition when speaking or writing within the constraints of that science about matters subject to scientific scrutiny.

You are not speaking or writing within the field of behavioral science so the general language definition of "bias" applies. Your use of it was perfectly correct.

Micheal's introduction of the behavioral science definition was wrong.

Mine's going on location with me for two months in SE Asia in June, so we shall see how it fares under daily use and constant travelling. I suppose the only thing I can say is that I KNOW the Nikons will be very very likely to make it to the end of the trip but I don't yet know about the GH3.

What you mean is, you hope and expect the Nikons will make it, but sorry, mate, you can’t be certain. In fact, over the years, a solid part of Nikon's appeal as a "professional tool" is the widespread repair and maintenance support for it around the world.

Nikons didn’t and don't always make it -- but you could get them serviced in a lot more places than most other cameras.

You are right, I do want a camera that is big enough to handle properly and that tends to be rather big by m43 standards; in fact, I usually tend to choose SLR cameras on the top of the middle range, which means something like 5d; big enough to handle properly, but without a battery grip that makes it unnecessarily heavy and bulky.

However, there's that problem of sensor size; for instance, Olympus E-5 is the same size as a 5d, but has a 4x smaller sensor. Considering the fact that not all 35mm lenses are bulky and not all 43 lenses are tiny, unless you are into long telephoto lenses the justification for going with a significantly smaller sensor is rather weak, which is why I rather reluctantly let go of the 43 format, but since I had good experiences with it I later bought an E-PL1.

And there you get that mixed bag: it is really small and practical to carry around, but it is too small and unergonomical when you actually use it.

The trick is, I don't really have any of those huge 35mm lenses; the biggest one I use is a 17-40mm f/4L wideangle, and it fits in my jacket pocket. It's all human-sized, while m43 stuff often feels hobbit-sized, if you know what I mean. So yes, I do understand why someone would want a human-sized m43 body, but then you get into my original dilemma: how is it better than a human-sized camera with a 35mm sensor?

Well, it is highly questionable if you can call a negative reaction to things that simply don't sit well with you "bias" simply because the negative reaction concerns your favorite camera. I have negative reactions to things that rub me the wrong way all the time, often about the things I own and use, not only to other people's stuff. It hardly makes me biased, or, if it does, the term should be freed from its negative conotations.

I am almost always accused of either bias or worse things when I criticise something someone is emotionally attached to. What I fail to understand is how that person, being emotionally attached to a thing, isn't biased, and I, who have no emotional stake in it other than simply not liking the thing, am.

So my experience is that biased people are the first to accuse others of bias when their emotional connections to stuff are irritated.

You are right, I do want a camera that is big enough to handle properly and that tends to be rather big by m43 standards; in fact, I usually tend to choose SLR cameras on the top of the middle range, which means something like 5d; big enough to handle properly, but without a battery grip that makes it unnecessarily heavy and bulky.

However, there's that problem of sensor size; for instance, Olympus E-5 is the same size as a 5d, but has a 4x smaller sensor. Considering the fact that not all 35mm lenses are bulky and not all 43 lenses are tiny, unless you are into long telephoto lenses the justification for going with a significantly smaller sensor is rather weak, which is why I rather reluctantly let go of the 43 format, but since I had good experiences with it I later bought an E-PL1.

And there you get that mixed bag: it is really small and practical to carry around, but it is too small and unergonomical when you actually use it.

The trick is, I don't really have any of those huge 35mm lenses; the biggest one I use is a 17-40mm f/4L wideangle, and it fits in my jacket pocket. It's all human-sized, while m43 stuff often feels hobbit-sized, if you know what I mean. So yes, I do understand why someone would want a human-sized m43 body, but then you get into my original dilemma: how is it better than a human-sized camera with a 35mm sensor?

And that is what it is or is not: to you and for your use, lenses included it probably is not what you want or need.

First of all: there is size and htere is weight. The smallest lightest FF DSLR is 60% heavier, 300 grams more. That is considerable. It is bigger than the lightest m43 compared to GH3.

GH3 is weatherproof. The lenses that make the system weatherproof are the 12-35 and 35-100. That combo, try to get somehting similar for FF. The weight difference is measured in kilo's, not grams. Still, these lenses are heavier than virtually all m43 lenses so the the combination with the GH3 (good grip) seems excellent.

Then there is video: Gh3 is better than any FF DSLR here.

For you, this may not be relevant but for others it seems the size, the weight, the lenses and the video capabilities together make for an excellent, relatively (very) small combination. is there any FF DSLR that is weatherproof with a swiveling screen BTW? For video another big plus.

Compared to other m43s the larger size seems ot mean a larger battery and much longer battery life, but I am not sure about this. Just remember I read that here and there.

What I find annoying in the entire matter is that he is routinely referred to as "a blogger", which is a convenient way of getting around the fact that he is an excellent commercial photographer with some of the most technically perfect and beautiful results I've seen in the world of product photography. He's "a blogger" in the same way Einstein is "a mediocre violin player" or Hemingway is "an alcoholic from Florida". "A blogger" is someone who has no other distinction or qualification other than writing a blog, and to many people here a top photographer suddenly becomes "a blogger" when he criticises their camera.

I'm really not competent for video because it's not my thing; I tried making a few video clips but they tend to lok static, like a slide show of photographs, because I lack skill in moving the camera during recording. So seeing how I suck at video it's not a big surprise that video recording isn't really something that influences my decisions in the choice of cameras. Also, I never actually tried a Panasonic m43 camera so I'm speaking generally; I honestly don't know if I'd like them or hate them.

What I find annoying in the entire matter is that he is routinely referred to as "a blogger", which is a convenient way of getting around the fact that he is an excellent commercial photographer with some of the most technically perfect and beautiful results I've seen in the world of product photography. He's "a blogger" in the same way Einstein is "a mediocre violin player" or Hemingway is "an alcoholic from Florida". "A blogger" is someone who has no other distinction or qualification other than writing a blog, and to many people here a top photographer suddenly becomes "a blogger" when he criticises their camera.